RAYMOND ALEXANDER SCHNEIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
L. L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's confession, made before Escobedo and Miranda, was admissible because those decisions do not apply retroactively.
Appellant was convicted of murder in 1962 based in part on an incriminating statement given to police. The statement was admitted into evidence withou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity Of Supreme Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In February, 1962, appellant was tried by jury in the State Courts of Florida and convicted of murder. A written incriminating statement given to police officers by appellant on July 29, 1961, was, without objection, received in evidence. Appellant’s counsel stipulated at the trial that the statement had been freely and voluntarily given by appellant.
After exhausting his state remedies, appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court which was denied. Appellant’s sole point on appeal is that, when the police started accusatory questioning, the appellant’s right to an attorney became vested, and an admittedly voluntary confession thereafter made could not be used against him.
Appellant’s case was tried before either Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, or Miranda v. State of Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 were decided by the Supreme Court. Neither case has retroactive application. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, Marion v. Harrist, 5 Cir. 1966, 363 F. 2d 139. Under the rules prevailing prior to Escobedo appellant’s sixth amendment right to counsel was not violated. Beavers v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 373 F. 2d 95, (Feb. 13, 1967).
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1966)
- Marion v. Grady Harrist, 363 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Beavers v. Beto, 373 F.2d 95 (5th Cir. 1967)